That's a bit mad, I can understand it but I just figure it for being some kind of third world attitude, kind of like "we're their bitches and we know it".

We're conditioned to think that way. There was a lot of effort made to kill our unions and it was very effective. People see union workers making more than they make and instead of thinking they deserve to make more money, they think union workers deserve to make less. It's mystifying. We revere "job creators" as the sources of all good things and we are to be grateful for the crumbs that fall from their tables. I guess we're even grateful when the crumbs are accompanied by toxic waste.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~ John Rogers

We're conditioned to think that way. There was a lot of effort made to kill our unions and it was very effective. People see union workers making more than they make and instead of thinking they deserve to make more money, they think union workers deserve to make less. It's mystifying. We revere "job creators" as the sources of all good things and we are to be grateful for the crumbs that fall from their tables. I guess we're even grateful when the crumbs are accompanied by toxic waste.

This situation is perfectly mirrored here across the water, I'm amazed at how people think its fine to bail out the banks, protect their multi-million wage packets but want to make it easier to sack employees of the health and social services and cut their wages.

Its a strange psychology, although I dont think its got to the point of not minding being poisoned yet.

The alternatives are coming along quickly if not really already here. Have you seen the map of potential solar output if it were subsidized as much as oil?

At any rate, how long do you think it will take to be viable? Long enough to justify numerous, very slow and expensive fossil fuel expansions?

Solar isn't generally considered "base load" and with good reason... although combining solar + hydro is an interesting prospect, I vaguely recall an article posted by Bill Gates on twitter a while back suggesting the use of solar to pump water to an uphill reservoir & hydro tech to extract base load power from it.

Currently natural gas makes the most economic sense for energy production moving forward. Hope as I might the stigma against nuclear isn't going anywhere.

Jobs are still the most pressing issue, and declining dependence on foreign oil will cure many ills.

Natural gas' time has come, it can immediately replace domestic coal energy production (while we export the coal) and is much cleaner.

No other tech is ready to step in as America's no. 1 domestic energy producer while reducing pollution except nuclear, and we wont adopt that because of the stigma mentioned above.

American's aren't as ignorant as you claim, their priorities are just different than yours.

Oh, American's are definitely a very ignorant people, and there are far more examples than just this situation. Although, in this situation, even you notice they have nuclear energy for little valid reason.

Originally Posted by spirilis

Solar isn't generally considered "base load" and with good reason... although combining solar + hydro is an interesting prospect, I vaguely recall an article posted by Bill Gates on twitter a while back suggesting the use of solar to pump water to an uphill reservoir & hydro tech to extract base load power from it.

I suppose you're right, but at this point in time, I don't see why handling heavy industry and such with nuclear and leaving the rest to renewable sources isn't viable.

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Oh, American's are definitely a very ignorant people, and there are far more examples than just this situation. Although, in this situation, even you notice they have nuclear energy for little valid reason.

I suppose you're right, but at this point in time, I don't see why handling heavy industry and such with nuclear and leaving the rest to renewable sources isn't viable.

People are ignorant generally.

Some more so and some less so, but I would put money on people being equivalently ignorant across the globe.

Solar (photovoltaic cells) will eventually be cheaper than coal. The only question is how soon. I've seen projections that put the crossover point near the end of this decade. Gas might also be cheaper than coal by then, keeping solar from being the cheapest for a while longer (perhaps until the middle of the next decade). But solar will eventually be the cheapest. That is inevitable.

That said, solar doesn't work well for everything. It doesn't really work for industrial plants because they have massive motors with large inrush currents, for example. You would have to build way over your normal capacity to handle those inrush currents with solar, and I doubt that would be economically viable in the foreseeable future. However, if we can ever solve the storage problem, solar will be the new backbone of the energy generation industry. I expect natural gas to be the supplement to solar in the future because 1) we'll already have that infrastructure in place and 2) many other sources can't be turned on-and-off on demand (including nuclear).

Lots of people view solar as a pipe dream, but it really is right around the corner. Fusion is the real pipe dream.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Solar (photovoltaic cells) will eventually be cheaper than coal. The only question is how soon. I've seen projections that put the crossover point near the end of this decade. Gas might also be cheaper than coal by then, keeping solar from being the cheapest for a while longer (perhaps until the middle of the next decade). But solar will eventually be the cheapest. That is inevitable.

That said, solar doesn't work well for everything. It doesn't really work for industrial plants because they have massive motors with large inrush currents, for example. You would have to build way over your normal capacity to handle those inrush currents with solar, and I doubt that would be economically viable in the foreseeable future. However, if we can ever solve the storage problem, solar will be the new backbone of the energy generation industry. I expect natural gas to be the supplement to solar in the future because 1) we'll already have that infrastructure in place and 2) many other sources can't be turned on-and-off on demand (including nuclear).

Lots of people view solar as a pipe dream, but it really is right around the corner. Fusion is the real pipe dream.

Natural gas pushes coal out of the market at anything less than $3.00 per 1000 cubic feet (commonly understood as the "wellhead" price).

Last year natural gas hit $1.89 per 1000cu./ft. in April and was only over $3.00 for the months of Oct., Nov. and Dec. ($3.03, $3.35, $3.35 respectively).